That's all I've ever wanted, mcsven. I know LT will be much more in its final release but I would be more than happy with a limited version of this nature.

I'd be satisfied with the Victor version

As a start, I think Freelancer is far too small a vision

Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can

With regard to the question of how much is left to do, my only real - criticism is a strong world - suggestion to Josh is that he doesn't need to release the entire game at once. We've seen an alternative model from plenty of smaller devs over the years: release game as a beta and incrementally improve.

Where I'm coming from here is that, based on what we've seen, I'm convinced that Josh has the capability to release a procedurally-generated Freelancer clone with better graphics. I'm talking fixed prices/no dynamic marketplaces. I'm talking finite universes. I'm talking no research. etc. etc. This could easily be LT v0.5. (I made the same point here 18 months ago.)

And of course, it should go without saying (but I know from experience that, sadly, it needs to be said): that's not me advocating that he doesn't eventually release v1.0 that meets his obligations to his Kickstarter backers. Just that endlessly squirreling away for "total perfection" when the tools are at hand to deliver "good start" would be a shame if it pushed LT's eventual delivery many more years.

This is, fortunately or unfortunately (Depending on your view) not what Josh is like.

Releasing an unfinished product as a 'beta' (Really, that's an alpha at best) is not a business practice that I find admirable, even if the game is taking ages to come out.

I've said it before: I'm willing to wait another few years if it means the game I first get my hands on will be nearly peak LT, as opposed to some watered down, forgettable space shooter, because we have enough of those.

Releasing an unfinished product as a 'beta' (Really, that's an alpha at best) is not a business practice that I find admirable, even if the game is taking ages to come out.

There is a specific difference between a larger Team and a small or 1-man team when developing a game.
And that is early feedback. In a larger Team, the early and later stages of the game can be played internally by dozents of different people, for professional reasons (QA, Designer, Developers) or a player perspective (administrative staff, other inhouse teams, guests, peer-group testers). All while keeping details internally under an NDA.
There is way more potential feedback on problems, especially by people who are not so close to development that obvious problems can blend out.

Now a tiny team is usually only the ones directly involved in the development.
Objective and Subjective Feedback is just not the same here.

And thats why I think those teams profit a lot more from having early versions out to gather feedback ... something that is not needed in a large game company.
Blizzard or Bethesda can very well polish a game by internal playtests only. They have enough people to do that internally.

There is a specific difference between a larger Team and a small or 1-man team when developing a game.
And that is early feedback. In a larger Team, the early and later stages of the game can be played internally by dozents of different people, for professional reasons (QA, Designer, Developers) or a player perspective (administrative staff, other inhouse teams, guests, peer-group testers). All while keeping details internally under an NDA.
There is way more potential feedback on problems, especially by people who are not so close to development that obvious problems can blend out.

Now a tiny team is usually only the ones directly involved in the development.
Objective and Subjective Feedback is just not the same here.

And thats why I think those teams profit a lot more from having early versions out to gather feedback ... something that is not needed in a large game company.
Blizzard or Bethesda can very well polish a game by internal playtests only. They have enough people to do that internally.

I'm not suggesting no beta or that releasing a version to test is necessarily wrong (I'm a backer at the LT beta level anyway). But it would erk me if a game was released as an incomplete product.

I don't like "early access" on Steam, because it's not usually meant to get beta testers, it's used as an excuse to gather money on a product that is not completely finished. I agree with a closed beta (Even a large one, ala ubisoft games) but I don't feel right about releasing games missing a ton of features and just in generally bad shape compared to what it's supposed to be.

If that were an excuse, games like NMS, which were released in a shitty 'demo-like' state wouldn't still be having image issues after beefing up its gameplay.

I don't like "early access" on Steam, because it's not usually meant to get beta testers, it's used as an excuse to gather money on a product that is not completely finished.

And I think that development model is completely acceptable WHEN:
-its not used to cash grab to get some money back on a failed development originally financed by a large studio, and just living off the hype from a previous release (the guild 3 is an example of that)
-there are regular updates, and the money received is used for financing the team to keep adding to the game

The early access model is a way to get financing a game for a small team alternatively to the classic publisher/investor -> money -> development according to milestones -> release when marketing window is there -> try to get the money back within the first weeks of sales.
That classic model is what would have killed of many of the successful indy games. They would never have gotten the financing for it. For a publisher its safer to do an iteration of a known brand, done by an established team, basing the game around established gameplay. Especially as its a large upfront investment, that MUST make back the large chunk of money within a very short time. Thats risky, and thats why publishers have many games in parallel to spread the risk.

There are many early access games that seem to never get out of their "alpha" state. But thats misleading, as those games are not in an "alpha" compared to alphas in a classic development model.
Its more of a "perpetual alpha". The games get (ideally) regular updates to game mechanics and content -> while players can play it, and give feedback.
From a business standpoint there is little reason to "finish" the game, as this would signal that it simply would not get any more content updates. Neither the developer (revenue) nor the players (new content) would profit from that.
It actually makes more sense to finally "release" the game, once the revenue withers down. The upcoming final version can then get a final marketing push.
That would be the time to get onto a new project.
Also, it lowers the financial risk a lot for a small team. If they start out with few people, and then get a good regular revenue stream in, they can scale up the team as needed. If the revenue does not allow that, they can keep their team smaller, as scaling up development would probably overestimate their customer base. (Small games can also be profitable).

Its also a much better development model for a sandbox, strategy or PvP type game. A game with a scripted story would not work in this environment. Once the players saw the content, there isnt much new to experience.

Nevertheless, the early access model allows players to PLAY the game, and developers to get honest feedback. And thats a win-win ... as long as the the developer is actually caring for the product, that is.

Well I know Tal is valiantly trying to get him to communicate with us, that it's not working is worrying. Josh should know by now we don't need anything fancy just a quick few notes, maybe a pic or two.

If he's showboating, just say it will be worth the wait. If things aren't going as planned, we also want to know. This shouldn't be like pulling teeth.

Let no one say the LT community feels Josh can do no wrong... As some communities are known to.

Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can

Well I know Tal is valiantly trying to get him to communicate with us, that it's not working is worrying. Josh should know by now we don't need anything fancy just a quick few notes, maybe a pic or two.

If he's showboating, just say it will be worth the wait. If things aren't going as planned, we also want to know. This shouldn't be like pulling teeth.

Let no one say the LT community feels Josh can do no wrong... As some communities are known to.

Yeah, I've been poking him to make a post for a while now. I'm not actually sure at all what's causing the lag in communication, but I'm trying to get him to post something, somewhere, ASAP. It would hurt him (and us) for him to fall back into the old habits of silence.

He was working on a Kickstarter post. That was... two weeks ago, I think. I'm not sure what happened with that, or what happened with this.